I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

What should scientists who research these topics do? Force the media outlets to let them speak on TV?

I'm sure the media would prefer to hear from a scientist on scientific issues, than a politician. It has to be that scientists just suck at gaining control of the conversation.

That is likely, since the kinds of conversational skills involved in being a good politician are often incompatible with productive scientific discourse.

If the media would prefer to hear from scientists, then why is there a lack of representation from scientists in the media on the topic (according to you, I'm not aware of what's happening on tv)?. Are scientists mainly refusing invitations to speak about it on news channels?

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

What should scientists who research these topics do? Force the media outlets to let them speak on TV?

I'm sure the media would prefer to hear from a scientist on scientific issues, than a politician. It has to be that scientists just suck at gaining control of the conversation.

That is likely, since the kinds of conversational skills involved in being a good politician are often incompatible with productive scientific discourse.

If the media would prefer to hear from scientists, then why is there a lack of representation from scientists in the media on the topic (according to you, I'm not aware of what's happening on tv)?. Are scientists mainly refusing invitations to speak about it on news channels?

I don't know what they are doing. I doubt it is refusal as much as it is they aren't the most vocal advocates for things.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

What should scientists who research these topics do? Force the media outlets to let them speak on TV?

I'm sure the media would prefer to hear from a scientist on scientific issues, than a politician. It has to be that scientists just suck at gaining control of the conversation.

That is likely, since the kinds of conversational skills involved in being a good politician are often incompatible with productive scientific discourse.

If the media would prefer to hear from scientists, then why is there a lack of representation from scientists in the media on the topic (according to you, I'm not aware of what's happening on tv)?. Are scientists mainly refusing invitations to speak about it on news channels?

I don't know what they are doing. I doubt it is refusal as much as it is they aren't the most vocal advocates for things.

Well, apparently in Canada, the government has made it illegal for climate scientists (and researchers on fish populations, etc.), to speak to the media about those topics without government permission, which is often denied, or granted after it is too late. I don't remember if this only affects government scientists, or all climate scientists.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation?

Wylted, I think you're right that any coordinated climate change solution must be driven by conservative politics and not just liberal politics; else it'll risk losing focus as well as losing support.

However, the quality of discussion isn't about the quality of minds -- there are plenty of good minds in both science and politics; it's about the quality of news reportage.

When news becomes owned by communication companies then instead of competing on information and analysis, it competes on attention instead. A competition for attention over information contributes to alarmism, confected controversy, and the substitution of provocative opinion for fact; and this affects all sides of politics.

Unfortunately, the decision to allow US news ownership consolidation was a conservative decision from the Reagan era that failed to conserve. Among its many detrimental impacts on democracy is the fact that a scientific discussion (which I agree should be fact-based, rational, and neither politically partisan, or owned by partisan politics), is now virtually impossible.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation?

Wylted, I think you're right that any coordinated climate change solution must be driven by conservative politics and not just liberal politics; else it'll risk losing focus as well as losing support.

However, the quality of discussion isn't about the quality of minds -- there are plenty of good minds in both science and politics; it's about the quality of news reportage.

When news becomes owned by communication companies then instead of competing on information and analysis, it competes on attention instead. A competition for attention over information contributes to alarmism, confected controversy, and the substitution of provocative opinion for fact; and this affects all sides of politics.

Unfortunately, the decision to allow US news ownership consolidation was a conservative decision from the Reagan era that failed to conserve. Among its many detrimental impacts on democracy is the fact that a scientific discussion (which I agree should be fact-based, rational, and neither politically partisan, or owned by partisan politics), is now virtually impossible.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation?

Wylted, I think you're right that any coordinated climate change solution must be driven by conservative politics and not just liberal politics; else it'll risk losing focus as well as losing support.

However, the quality of discussion isn't about the quality of minds -- there are plenty of good minds in both science and politics; it's about the quality of news reportage.

When news becomes owned by communication companies then instead of competing on information and analysis, it competes on attention instead. A competition for attention over information contributes to alarmism, confected controversy, and the substitution of provocative opinion for fact; and this affects all sides of politics.

Unfortunately, the decision to allow US news ownership consolidation was a conservative decision from the Reagan era that failed to conserve. Among its many detrimental impacts on democracy is the fact that a scientific discussion (which I agree should be fact-based, rational, and neither politically partisan, or owned by partisan politics), is now virtually impossible.

Also it allowed my country to export Rupert Murdoch to yours.

Uh, you're welcome. :)

Lol, a bunch of good points there.

I was taking the piss a month or so back just for a laugh to add to the hysteria.....

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

Wylted 120 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

I don't ever recall alarmism about global warming. Maybe that was a North American problem. The first reference to global warming I remember was in the PC game Civilization (1991).Many frog species are threatened with extinction, but more due to habitat loss and a skin disease than global warming.

Wylted 1The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

It is never good. Humans have a tendency to under react to long term of far away problems, especially if their personal contribution is insignificant. If people are just told the truth, then they will move too slowly. If the problems are exaggerated, people will disbelieve in the future.Often the response to doomsday reports evolve as follows : first it is denied, then it is accepted but not our fault (that is where we are) and then it is too late to do anything about it anyway.

- UndeniableReality 2What should scientists who research these topics do? Force the media outlets to let them speak on TV?- Wylted 3I'm sure the media would prefer to hear from a scientist on scientific issues, than a politician. It has to be that scientists just suck at gaining control of the conversation.

As far as I can see scientists aren't reluctant to talk about global warming. It are the scientist that are the alarmists now. A motive for the media to favour alarmists would be that alarmism sells.

- Wylted 5I don't know what they are doing. I doubt it is refusal as much as it is they aren't the most vocal advocates for things.- UndeniableReality 6Well, apparently in Canada, the government has made it illegal for climate scientists (and researchers on fish populations, etc.), to speak to the media about those topics without government permission, which is often denied, or granted after it is too late. I don't remember if this only affects government scientists, or all climate scientists.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

I don't think the alarmists were attention-seekers or anything. They probably believed in the findings of their own research. Perhaps they had erred in methodology; perhaps there were factors they failed to take in, but I don't think they were ill-intentioned or anything. It's more of a media's problem IMO, since they're naturally inclined to write pages upon pages about alarmist predictions because it's sensationalist scoop, and more 'realistic' predictions aren't.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

The biggest authority on global warming is probably the IPCC. Now, I know there are those who are against it, but I think the organisation is mostly non-politicised and aimed only at combatting global warming. I actually think the politicisation of global warming may be limited to some countries (I'm aware that Al Gore may have had political motivations since he's a politician). You hear a lot of people talking about global warming in Hong Kong, but there aren't any political parties here that use it as a political tool.

I think it is well established that the only reason aliens come to earth is to slice up cows and examine inside peoples' bottoms. Unless you are a cow or suffer haemerrhoids I don't think there is anything to worry about from aliens. - keithprosser

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

At least alarmists did good their "ring the alarm" job so most countries nowadays have a more or less strict law against environmental exploitation and polution. Maybe it is because of these laws that the predictions were not fulfilled.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

1.) The earth is warming up; we have been recording temperatures for hundreds of years, and the rise in average temperatures is undeniably present.

2.) The concentrating of CO2 in the atmosphere is also rising; we have many ways of testing what this was in the past, and what it is now; and we know relatively accurately by how much the concentrations have increased in this time.

3.) We know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, this is well evidenced and well documented, and the rise in temperatures given a specific increase in CO2 is easily calculable.

4.) We have been measuring solar activity, and the impact of solar and orbital events for decades, and have seen no significance in the changes to either of them as they pertain to the earths climate as we see it now.

5.) We can estimate the amount of CO2 we as a species have emitted now, and in the industrial world.

6.) The increases in CO2 in (2), and the calculable temperature of how much this would warm the earth as evidenced in (3) correlated closely with the increase of temperature in (1).

7.) The increase in CO2 in (2) correlate closely with the CO2 we as a species have emitted as calculated in (5).

The house is on fire. We know that the house is on fire, and we know we have to work to put the fire out. Does it really matter if your friend says your house should have burned down ten minutes ago, or in ten minutes? It's not like it's not burning, nor is it the case that your friend is deliberately trying to alarm you for the sake of it; merely it's very difficult to judge how fast the house is going to burn.

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

At 3/26/2015 7:42:29 AM, Wylted wrote:I am 32 years old, which is oddly ancient on this site. I have an incredibly good memory. I like anybody else is still to a certain extent influenced by the biases I picked up 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I recall global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point, just in the 90s Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California. I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct and that the warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

These alarmists were likely motivated to just be full of crap by politics, and perhaps rightfully so. There are conservative solutions for global warming that in my opinion would work better than the liberal solutions, but conservatives, don't really offer those solutions, and instead puck the wrong fight in this debate.

The point I am trying to make is this. When I hear people concerned about global warming now, I can't help but to flashback to the times when alarmists made those ludicrous predictions. The alarmists have made me extremely skeptical of global warming and they have also made me indifferent to it.

Why do scientists allow the alarmists to dominate this conversation? If scientists are interested in the truth and want action taken against global warming, why do they allow this to become a politicized issue, that has all sides, veering away from the truth, so they can use it as a political weapon?

Dude, do you need citations. They certainly have said, that and much much worse.

20 years ago1) global warming alarmists, predicting the Earth would be totally uninhabitable at this point,2) Al Gore predicted people would have to start evacuating California.3) I remember predictions that frogs and lizards would be extinct4) The warming would somehow cause Yellowstone park to Erupt by now, ringing in a new ice age.

At 4/19/2015 10:39:45 PM, TBR wrote:Yup. An entire sub-species of climate denying devoted to stuff Al Gore said that he never said.

People say that, but I've linked to videos of him. Whatever here is a link to an article mentions several which has citations. This stuff really isn't hard to find, and anybody 25 years or older should have this stuff in their memory from liberal teachers trying to scare them, and not need citations.